Handing the inmates the keys

I learned three things today. But first a little context about how I got there.

There are occasions when they drive me nuts. It isn't the lack of progress because I am patient. It isn't their idiosyncrasies because I am amazingly tolerant (though this isn't always apparent). It is the whinging. The whining. Some are vocal about this and that I can handle. When they harp on about being boring I know they are giving me feedback. But that feedback can be interpreted in a number of ways. Yes, sometimes the structure is repetitive. Sometimes the content is uninteresting. What the young, unengaged mind fails to appreciate is that sometimes repetition is necessary.

My class uses an objective goal sheet. I put the goal on the board, they write it down and score themselves at the beginning of the lesson. This efficiently tells me how much they think they already know. At the end of the lesson they score themselves again and hopefully realized they have learned something. They score their effort too. Most kids understand what to do and do it well. Sometimes they fill it in with the purpose of helping me achieve MY goal (which is to see a progression in their learning). Interestingly most tend to be pretty honest with their effort score. They know when they've tried and when they haven't been "feeling it."

Something happened yesterday that changed this pattern.

Five students gave themselves the maximum score of four at the start and end of the lesson. They were telling me they knew it before I taught it, and still knew at the end. My first reaction was immediate offense - how can they be so arrogant? How can they know something before I taught it? Why are they such smart alecs?

Then I thought - what if they are right?

I decided to test this group of students. In homeroom I announced they would be teaching the afternoon class. I literally handed them the keys and said you need to continue our learning as a class. Set the goal, deliver the lesson. There wasn't a randomness to this challenge since we are working our way through a novel. I'll admit I was petrified. What if the boss wanders by and sees the anarchy? What if they completely stuff this up and I've got to reteach the whole lesson tomorrow?

I decided to throw caution into the wind. I sat myself in a student's chair at the back of the room. And I learned.

Firstly, the students did not understand the implications of a learning goal. The goal they set was narrow. "React to Old Bill." Actually that was the second goal. The first goal was "do the same as yesterday." (It should be noted that Old Bill doesn't even appear until well into the section we are reading. For the most part, we weren't going to be reading anything to do with our learning goal.)

The negativity (and I'll admit it, glee) I felt towards this apparent failure was soon replaced by something grander. As I watched them and completed the lesson to their instructions I saw them copy my lesson format. Without notes. Without planning or discussing it at lunch (refer to that goal - they clearly weren't prepared.) They managed to organise people to read and set out a note-taking form for quotes and reflections. And the students followed them. Herein lied my second lesson - the students had reached a point of aromaticity in the learning process. For all intents and purposes the boring repetition has served its function. Their notebooks are full of good quotes and thoughtful insights into them. And now they could do it with minimal instruction. I had in front of me, a group of students who had been influenced by my teaching and could independently put it into practice. It was a joy to watch and complete the questions the students set alongside them. I offered my own responses at appropriate times and pointed out some interesting insights. I paired and shared with my table group. It was an opportunity to model from the back of the room. (What a great idea! How had I not done this before?) And I loved it.

They liked it to. Not the authority (for ultimately they had none). But they learned. There was five of them who had to be active and checking student responses and making sure the class stayed on track. They realised it was harder than it looked.

The third lesson was more of a confirmation than a new idea. Risk taking can work. Every once and awhile I need to throw away the lesson plan and rely on my instinct. These kids gave me some feedback so I gave them a challenge. And they responded. Not perfectly mind you, they need a hand with the learning goal and making sure the lesson stays relevant throughout. But so do lots of qualified teachers. It is a lesson we can learn together. They had picked up on the key aspects of my modelling though had not been able to apply them perfectly. There is time for mastery. Hell, Bob Marzano says it takes a reflective, expert teacher ten years to reach mastery. I can't expect these kids to get it in 45 minutes.

When I got home I continued reading Roland Barth's 'Learning By Heart' for my Masters. In a chapter on the need for teachers to be active learners and researchers Barth summed it up perfectly - "[schools] can become cultures where youngsters are discovering the joy, the difficulty, and the excitement of learning and where adults are continually rediscovering the joy, the difficulty, and the excitement of learning." The message my students had been sending me was clear. The message I replied with broke some new ground for them and helped them develop a new appreciation for what we do. And I learned more about my class by not being the teacher and perhaps taught more by being a fellow student.

So how do I top that tomorrow? I probably can't. But I'm certainly going to try.

flash forward to the death of story telling

So I've watched a bit of Flash Forward and, like its cousin Lost, it appears to have zero direction beyond the basic premise. I won't go into it, but basically everyone blacked out for a minute and a bit and had 'visions.' While almost everyone blacked out (bar the 'men in black'- sorry, X-Files did that motif to death and did it well before they killed it), the world went to crap since planes and buses crashed and kangaroos broke free. Seriously.

A premise should never be confused with good story telling. Having a lot of characters should never be confused with character development. Four episodes in and we know little about even the main characters. The biggest revelation is that the dude from Harold and Kumar is going out with the chick from Bring It On! Oh, and the dude who died in Lost is a shadowy figure, someone like, well...
this guy,

this guy


and this guy.



Which brings me back to previous shows based on a premise. The X-Files' premise of aliens among us and the governments involvement was frustratingly teased out over nine seasons. The eventual ending was actually disappointing for the sole reason that it made sense. Followers of the show could recount the characters history and intertwining plots and could recognise the connections that had been there all along. All it needed was a two hour episode to tie it together.

Lost is well beyond the point of ever actually making sense. So many characters have come and gone and so many plot devices used across seasons that anything resembling rational, authentic story telling is long gone. Having lots of characters does not make us care. By way of example, the constant 'sudden' deaths of Boone et al., actually undermine your audience and cause them to resent their emotional investment. Killing the occasional character works but the constant stream of deaths (and indeed rebirths) doesn't help the audience. You keep pulling this card out every season and eventually they stop watching.

The X-Files largely survived this thanks to the 'one off' episodes that were a self contained story. There was still the major story arch (which was as complicated as hell) but the one off investigations by Mulder and Scully allowed the audience to reconnect with their protagonists and, on occasion, explore side characters as well. The premise was not compromised but it gave a more rounded show, and allowed casual viewers (and the writers) the chance to just see some 'cool stuff.' (The Simpsons did this perfectly during their golden era, though without overarching stories). The result of showing this ability to carry and complete a story was an audience who stayed with the show. They built a faith that they would eventually reveal the truth, something neither of the more recent shows has done. All Lost has done is offer flashbacks and flash forwards, a cheap way that avoids creating moments of exposition that invite the audience to care.

Flash Forward hasn't even been interesting enough to actually use a decent (or even cheap) plot device since they are still exploring their premise. There may be one off character pieces to come but so far it has been a slow process, clouded by a weekly schedule and too many characters. It is difficult to remember who is who when you have cops, FBI, a hospital and then minor characters to follow.

The success of these shows, along with certain novels (The Da Vinci Code) and movie franchises (Clone Wars), is only inviting apathy from the audience.

The art of story telling is the one suffering most. Tell a story and make me care about it. Leave cliff hangers and unresolved threads to the unimaginative.

If you are sick of crappy story telling- go see this (out now at Nova and good cinemas) and start watching this.

Who lives for twitter anyway?

I am totally addicted to twitter. Since starting a few weeks ago it has annihilated facebook as my communication of choice. Despite appearing limited it has many more uses than the claustrophobic, ad ridden, zombie infested facebook site. Hell, there is an rss feed to my twitter to the right.

The ability to update anytime, anywhere, without the hassle that facebook brings is brilliant! Straight from my iPhone to you! And instantly the update of "what I am doing now" appears on my msn, facebook and blogs. All I have to do is bring up Twittee (an iPhone app) and the website does the rest.

And then there is the news feeds, and celebrity inclusions- including Trent Reznor, Brittany Spears, and Russel Brand - are awesome! Ok, not awesome but certainly interesting for the next month or so before something else comes along and leaves twitter users labelled the 'out' crowd, as facebook users are now.

There are educational implications too, check out this! You can create twitters for students to show knowldge of anything that involves change, opinion and time. For instance, the evolution of man in science, the rise of caesar in history and the role Lions play in aesop's fables. Deeper character study? Why not ask students to sign in and create twitter blogs for Vincent in Gattaca or Shylock in The Mechant of Venice? Imagine integrating the RSS feeds into a wiki on the subject being studied and having a list of what the characters are doing today? And what if they can do this from their mobile phones or iPod Touch? (Hence removing the need for any actual ICT equipment in the room).

As with anything software based, it does take some adjustment but the beauty of twitter is that it is actually simple (remember who got you into myspace and facebook and promised "it was easy"? Are you still on speaking terms with them?) There is little more to it than 140 characters to tell the world what you are up to. You can add mobile and quick pics that link to a seperate area but these arent essential.

So for your next social networking adventure, do consider twitter.

Totally off topic but WATCHMEN is out on Thursday! Fairly excited, review soon.